What are your thoughts on this? I find it pretty effin disturbing in the way it seems to be implemented? Sounds like a loophole where anyone can claim they were afraid as justification for killing someone. It seems to have removed the whole thing where you have to prove that a life was actually in iminent danger and that the perp had the means and intentions to take a life. In Fla it seems that all you have to say is that you were afraid so you wasted him in self defense..

In the recent Zimmerman case you have a wanna be cop who could not make the force due to being Rejected roaming the streets armed looking for troubble. He spots a victim, stalks that victim and kills him then claimes he was afraid for his life? WTF

You can make a case for the dead teen to be in fear of his life and allowed to use deadly force against his killer, but you can bet he would be in jail now if he did. The stand your ground law should not apply here. Zimmerman was told by 911 not to pursue. So terribly sad.

Read one piece today that outlined a few other instances in FL similarly troubling where the shooter also wasn't arrested based on this law. Scary stuff. I bet Texas is happy having the focus taken off of them. :/

View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

"(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). "

So they essentially immunize the guy against civil suit if they don't prosecute on the criminal side.

#3 is the loophole. the presumed to be in iminent danger part is way to vauge. Anyone can presume anything.. Seems like FL has no interest in checking the facts to see if there was actually a real threat to human life VS a Precieved threat.

Put this in climbing terms; Anyone who precieves that a route is dangerous may add as many bolts as nessicary to make said route safe. There would be G rated 5.5 crack climbs getting retro bolted by some pansy assed wanker who precieved them to be dangerous....

Ron, it seems like people are able to say that they were afraid for their life without haveing to prove that their life was actually in real jeprody. Precieved danger vs actual danger are very often two entirely different things.

How would you feel if one of your unarmed children was killed by a hair trigger pansy assed wimp just because that wimp was afraid? how would you feel if the shooter walked?

Without language in there that killers need to prove that they were actualy in real danger it seems like a licence to murder? Anyone can precieve any damn thing they want regardless of the reality of the situation and the cops won't touch it because the shooter will walk as long as they say they precieved danger?

It is precisly crap like this that makes me feel that the NRA are a bunch of cluless whack jobs.
I have no problem with a stand your ground law as long as you can prove that the person you shot #1 had the means to kill you or other innocent person. #2 had the intent to kill. Without the requirement of proof that there was actual danger = the means to kill and the intent to kill the law is literaly a licence to kill anyone you want as long as you say you were afraid of them. That is certainly how the law seems to be interpreted in FL if you read some of the previous cases.

This particular case has very little to do with the law you are arguing about. It is apparent that the shooter likely chased and attacked the victim, and if this is the case the new law is not applicable.

Similarly, if the shooter's story were true, that is, if in fact he were retreating and had been jumped and attacked from behind, his right to self-defense, established in law long ago, would protect him - even without any new laws.

In general a very young and slight man unarmed, eating a snack and returning home from a store would not be found a threat to a larger man pursuing him. This fact alone makes the law in dispute irrelevant without some further evidence.

The real issue here is why the police and prosecutors in this case do not wish to investigate or pursue it. Perhaps it is a matter of them having come to know the shooter and treating him as if he were an inside member of their community. Perhaps it is racial. But this is the real issue. Fewer people would object to the results if the victim were much larger, had an established criminal record, and the shooter's story of being attacked were more credible.

Can't find it now, but gangsters have been let off the hook after shoot outs due to this law. By the law, once a person claims they acted in self-defense, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. And as this case proves so far, you can pursue someone and then kill them if they turn on you. The law states you only have to believe you're threatened:
:776.012 Use of force in defense of person. — A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

The state self-defense law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat before using deadly force to confront an attacker. Police and prosecutors statewide have said the the law fosters a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.

The law includes a provision that grants "immunity" from prosecution or civil lawsuits if a person is deemed to have acted in self-defense, though lawmakers did not clearly specify exactly who bestows the immunity.

After a series of court battles across the state, the Florida Supreme Court in December 2010 ruled that judges should be the ones to consider evidence under a looser standard than the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt" one used before juries in criminal cases.

Since then, South Florida judges have dismissed charges in several murder cases in which defendants sought immunity based on the law.

Last month, however, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch denied the immunity claim of a Florida International University student who stabbed an unarmed football player to death during a brawl.

The law "does not justify the use of deadly force in response to threats or shows of force of any and ever kind. In ordinary circumstances a push or a slap may be met with a push or a slap, or perhaps a punch - but not with a bullet," Hirsch said.

Miami-Dade defense attorney Jeffrey Weiner, who recently had a murder case thrown out by a judge on self-defense grounds, said: "The shooter must be able to point out, preferably with witnesses, that he wasn't just seeking vigilante justice."

Still, legal experts say Zimmerman, if arrested, would probably be charged with manslaughter, not murder - and would have a strong defense under Florida's law, with a judge needing to decide first whether he is immune from prosecution.

"I think absolutely this is a case that squarely falls within the Stand Your Ground immunity statute," said defense attorney Bill Matthewman. "Even if he shouldn't have been following 1/8Martin3/8 he's not committing a crime and he can stand his ground."

This just in from Indiana. Senate Bill 1:
"Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to injure the public servant; (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."

Seems entirely reasonable to me. If someone is forceably entering my house or car I'm gonna be afraid for my life. If I had a gun, I wouldn't think twice about it. If I am elsewhere and someone attacks me, I'm gonna be afraid in that situation, too. People need to act civilly to one another. Breaking into my place or attacking me when I'm out isn't civil behavior. It's hostile aggression, plain and simple. The consequences become their problem. What wrong with that?

The way I read it is says you have to be attacked or someone has to be entering. That says to me that there has had to have been overt behavior by someone else. I may have missed it, but don't see belief?

I think that regardless of the self-defense issue, any time someone kills someone else, they should be locked up that minute. There needs to be a period of time when the cops can investigate the incident so that they can determine if the shooter is completely nuts and likely to run around killing more people. Maybe it's cool to let someone go a few hours later but they should have initially treated this like a murder until there was any evidence at all either way.

The fact that the victim was unarmed and going about his lawful business seems like enough reason to throw out the self-defense claim immediately. There should be no "I'm a pansy with a gun and got myself into this situation because I'm an ass" defense!

It would suck for the victim but society may have been better off if this guy found another gun and killed another person a few hours later. That would have gotten rid of this concept of going scot-free after a shooting.

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

Many readers have asked whether, given the 911 recordings, a case against Zimmerman would be easier than most homicides in which "self-defense" is cited by a defendant. In Florida, the answer probably is no: The courts' interpretation of the stand-your-ground law has been extremely broad—so broad that, to win an acquittal, a defendant doesn't even have to prove self-defense, only argue for it, while to win a conviction the prosecution has to prove that self-defense was impossible.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.